Social Prescribing After Cancer Treatment in Viet Nam: Where Could Community-Connected Support Complement Survivorship Care?
EVIDENCE & EVALUATION
Social Prescribing After Cancer Treatment in Viet Nam: Where Could Community-Connected Support Complement Survivorship Care?
Category: Evidence & Evaluation
Completing cancer treatment can be an important milestone, but it does not always mean that life simply returns to normal. People may continue to live with fatigue, pain, neuropathy, changes in physical function, sleep problems, altered body image, fear of recurrence, financial pressure, disrupted work and family roles, or a reduced social life. Some may need professional rehabilitation, psycho-oncology, mental-health care or other clinical and supportive services. Others may be medically stable but find that reconnecting with everyday life is harder than expected.
This is where social prescribing deserves careful consideration. Broadly, social prescribing is a person-centered approach that helps connect people with appropriate non-clinical and community resources, usually through some form of assessment, referral or navigation. For some people after cancer treatment, community-connected support may help rebuild meaningful activities, relationships and participation. But it should not be presented as a new form of cancer treatment, a substitute for survivorship care or a solution to every unmet need. The more useful question for Viet Nam is narrower: where could social prescribing add value alongside oncology follow-up, rehabilitation, psychosocial support and existing community resources — and where should other forms of care remain central?
“After treatment” does not mean “after cancer care”
Cancer survivorship is defined differently across health systems and research traditions. Some definitions begin survivorship at diagnosis, while others focus more specifically on the period after active treatment. This article concentrates mainly on adults who have completed primary cancer treatment and are moving into post-treatment follow-up and longer-term survivorship, while recognizing that some people may continue maintenance or endocrine therapy and that recovery trajectories vary considerably.
That distinction matters because survivorship care is much broader than community support. ESMO identifies five major components: physical effects of cancer and chronic medical conditions; psychological effects; social, work and financial effects; surveillance for recurrence and second cancers; and cancer prevention and promotion of overall health and well-being. Current NCCN survivorship guidance similarly addresses common physical and psychosocial problems, wellness and care coordination, with the 2026 update giving particular attention to anxiety, depression, distress and trauma.
Social prescribing may contribute to some of those domains, especially where needs involve social connection, meaningful activity, participation and access to community resources. It cannot take responsibility for the whole survivorship pathway.
What does the current evidence actually tell us?
The most directly relevant recent evidence is a 2026 systematic scoping review in Supportive Care in Cancer examining social-prescribing-related interventions for adults recovering after cancer treatment. The review included 32 studies and identified seven broad intervention types: gardening, peer support, expressive writing, art therapy, physical activity, blue prescriptions and spiritual care.
Across the included studies, authors reported potentially positive findings in areas such as psychological well-being, coping, social connectedness, fatigue, physical functioning and quality of life. But the limitations matter. The literature search ended on 31 March 2025, intervention designs and outcome measures were highly heterogeneous, and key components commonly associated with social-prescribing pathways, including structured needs assessment, formal referral, link-worker involvement and implementation fidelity, were not consistently described. The review also did not conduct a formal risk-of-bias appraisal because its purpose was to map the evidence rather than estimate treatment effects.
The evidence should therefore not be summarized as “social prescribing is proven to improve outcomes for cancer survivors.” A more accurate interpretation is that a heterogeneous group of community-anchored interventions linked through referral or recommendation pathways shows promising psychosocial, participation and well-being signals, while evidence for social prescribing as a distinct and standardized model of cancer survivorship care remains limited.
More recent research reinforces that cautious interpretation. In September 2026, PLOS One published a protocol for a feasibility pilot randomized controlled trial of an adapted Enhanced Social Prescribing intervention for adult cancer survivors experiencing loneliness in rural and rural-serving primary-care settings in the United States. The protocol describes a study involving 36 participants and examines feasibility, acceptability and outcomes including loneliness, social connection, self-efficacy and quality of life. It is a study protocol, not an effectiveness result, with primary outcome analysis expected in 2027. That is useful evidence of where the field is heading, but it does not yet tell us whether the intervention works.
Viet Nam has emerging evidence about what remains unmet after treatment
A particularly relevant Vietnamese study published in 2026 examined 354 adults with colorectal cancer who had completed primary treatment and were attending follow-up care at a leading oncology hospital in Viet Nam. Overall, 70.8% reported at least one unmet supportive-care need. Existential survivorship needs were the most frequently reported, while the greatest severity was found in the quality-of-life domain. Higher unmet need was associated with lower educational attainment, receipt of adjuvant therapy and a shorter time since treatment completion.
These findings should not be generalized to every cancer survivor in Viet Nam. The study was cross-sectional, used convenience sampling and focused specifically on colorectal cancer survivors. Most importantly, it did not evaluate social prescribing.
Its value is different: it provides contemporary Vietnamese evidence that completion of cancer treatment does not necessarily mean completion of supportive needs. That gives us a legitimate reason to ask whether better connections between healthcare and community resources could complement survivorship care. It does not tell us that social prescribing is the answer to those needs.
Start with the need, not with the activity
One of the easiest mistakes in social prescribing is to begin with a menu: exercise group, arts program, gardening, peer support or volunteering. Cancer survivorship should begin from the other direction. What is the person experiencing? What matters to them now? Is the issue clinical, functional, psychological, social, practical or some combination of these? What has changed since treatment? What part of everyday life would they like to regain? And is community connection actually an appropriate response?
Someone experiencing progressive breathlessness, a new neurological symptom or another possible sign of recurrence does not primarily need a social prescription. Someone with significant lymphedema, severe neuropathy or major functional impairment may require professional assessment and rehabilitation. Someone experiencing major depression, trauma or severe anxiety may need formal mental-health assessment and treatment. Another person may be clinically stable but have stopped seeing friends, lost confidence in returning to ordinary activities and no longer know what resources exist locally. That is a different problem, and community-connected support may be much more relevant.
The sequence should therefore be understand the need → determine the appropriate response → consider community connection where it fits, rather than cancer treatment completed → refer to a community activity.
Rebuilding social participation may be one of the clearest opportunities
Cancer treatment can reorganize everyday life around appointments, symptoms, uncertainty and dependence on others. When intensive treatment ends, the clinical schedule may become lighter while the social consequences remain. Friendships may have changed, hobbies may have disappeared, confidence may have declined, or a person's identity may have become dominated by being “a cancer patient.” Returning to family, community or workplace roles can also take time.
Community activities may help some people rebuild a life that is not organized only around disease. Peer connection, arts, volunteering, gardening, learning, physical activity or other meaningful forms of participation can provide opportunities to reconnect with previous interests and relationships or discover new ones.
The point is not simply to “keep survivors busy.” Meaningful participation can support identity, agency and belonging. But the activity has to matter to the individual. Gardening is not inherently therapeutic for someone who dislikes gardening, and a cancer-survivor group may be exactly what one person wants while another is actively trying to spend less of their life talking about cancer.
Peer support may help, but it is not psycho-oncology
Peer support was one of the intervention categories identified in the 2026 scoping review. Across different programs, participants reported experiences of connection, reduced isolation, shared understanding and opportunities to discuss experiences with people who had been through something similar.
That can be valuable after treatment, particularly when family and friends expect life to return quickly to normal. But peer support has boundaries. A peer volunteer is not automatically qualified to assess severe depression, trauma, suicidal risk or complex psychological problems, and a support group is not a replacement for psycho-oncology, psychiatry or professional psychological treatment when these are required.
Good community-connected care therefore needs both routes: connection where connection is appropriate, and professional escalation where professional care is needed.
Physical activity is not automatically cancer rehabilitation
Community walking groups, appropriately adapted exercise programs or other forms of physical activity may help some survivors regain confidence, routine and social participation. Physical-activity interventions were included in the 2026 cancer social-prescribing review and showed promising findings across several physical and psychological outcome domains.
But post-treatment physical problems can include fatigue, lymphedema, neuropathy, weakness, pain, balance problems, cardiopulmonary limitations, bowel or bladder difficulties and other treatment-related effects. Depending on the problem, professional cancer rehabilitation or other clinical assessment may therefore be needed before or alongside community activity.
A community exercise program should not quietly become cancer rehabilitation simply because participants have completed cancer treatment. For some people, an appropriate pathway may look like clinical assessment → professional rehabilitation → transition into suitable community activity. For others who are clinically stable and do not have relevant contraindications or rehabilitation needs, community participation may be entirely reasonable. The distinction should depend on the person's condition and goals, not simply on what program happens to be available.
Social prescribing should complement surveillance, never compete with it
Post-treatment survivorship still requires appropriate oncology follow-up. Depending on cancer type, treatment and individual risk, this may include surveillance for recurrence and second malignancies, assessment of late effects and management of chronic consequences of cancer and its treatment.
Community participation cannot determine whether a new symptom represents recurrence. A navigator cannot substitute for oncology follow-up. Fatigue, pain, unexplained weight loss or other new or changing symptoms should not simply be reframed as lifestyle or social issues when clinical reassessment may be appropriate.
This becomes particularly important when community organizations develop trusted relationships with survivors. Someone may mention a worrying symptom first to a peer leader, volunteer or activity facilitator rather than to their healthcare team. Community partners do not need to diagnose cancer-related problems, but they do need to know when a concern should be directed back to healthcare.
Fear of recurrence sits at the boundary between clinical and community support
Fear that cancer will return is common in survivorship and can range from understandable intermittent concern to persistent distress that substantially interferes with daily life. Community connection may help some people regain confidence, reduce isolation and rebuild meaningful life outside cancer. Peer support can also provide space to discuss experiences that family members may find difficult to understand.
But social prescribing should not become the default response to clinically significant anxiety, trauma or psychological distress. The 2026 NCCN survivorship update specifically addresses screening, evaluation and treatment of anxiety, depression, distress and trauma in adult cancer survivors.
The practical question is therefore not whether fear of recurrence is “medical” or “social.” It is what level and type of support this particular person needs.
Returning to work and ordinary roles may require more than one sector
Return to work after cancer depends on far more than medical recovery. A 2025 systematic review of 13 qualitative studies identified factors across individual, interpersonal, organizational, community and policy levels, including post-treatment symptoms, emotional state, workplace relationships, employer support, return-to-work arrangements, community attitudes and relevant policies.
A navigator may help someone locate peer support, vocational resources, practical services or appropriate rehabilitation. But social prescribing cannot by itself provide workplace accommodations, resolve income loss, determine employment rights or replace occupational-health support.
Navigation is most useful when it helps the person reach the right system, rather than trying to convert every problem into a community activity.
Cancer survivors are not one population
The term “cancer survivor” covers an extraordinarily heterogeneous group. Someone recently completing colorectal cancer treatment with a stoma, severe fatigue and financial pressure is not in the same situation as someone several years after breast cancer treatment who is medically stable but socially isolated. A younger survivor concerned about fertility, work and family formation may have very different priorities from an older adult living alone with multimorbidity.
Cancer type, treatment, time since treatment, function, comorbidities, income, education, geography, family support and personal preferences can all influence what support is needed and what support is realistically usable. The recent Vietnamese colorectal cancer study illustrates part of this heterogeneity: people closer to treatment completion and those with lower educational attainment reported greater unmet need. That finding does not establish who should receive social prescribing, but it reinforces why a single pathway for every survivor would be difficult to justify.
The goal should therefore not be “social prescribing for all cancer survivors.” It should be a proportionate pathway able to recognize who may benefit from community-connected support, who needs professional intervention and who does not want additional support at all.
Community capacity matters as much as referral capacity
A cancer center can create a referral pathway much faster than a community can build suitable support. The 2026 cancer scoping review identified accessibility, engagement, professional support, resources and sustainability among recurring implementation challenges, while broader social-prescribing research has also emphasized the importance of community-sector capacity, stable funding, workforce and local implementation conditions.
This is particularly relevant in Viet Nam. Hospitals should not generate large numbers of referrals to organizations whose capacity, suitability and accessibility are poorly understood. A community program may look impressive in a directory but operate only intermittently, lack stable funding or have little experience supporting people living with treatment-related limitations.
Community partners also need protection from inappropriate role expansion. An arts facilitator, exercise leader, peer volunteer or community organization should not become responsible for complex oncology, rehabilitation or mental-health needs merely because healthcare has referred someone there. Before referrals begin, the practical questions are straightforward: What does the organization actually provide? Who is the service suitable for? What is outside its scope? How much capacity does it have? What happens when concerns arise?
Viet Nam already has professional structures that should not be bypassed
Social prescribing would not enter a professional vacuum in Viet Nam. Circular No. 51/2024/TT-BYT, effective from 1 March 2025, regulates social-work services, service processes, intervention planning and evaluation in medical examination and treatment establishments licensed to operate as hospitals. Its provisions include assessment of psychological and social risks and needs, psychosocial support, intervention planning, coordination and, where necessary, referral to appropriate organizations or services.
The Circular does not establish social prescribing as a national Vietnamese service model or create a profession called a “social prescribing navigator.” It does mean that hospital-based oncology programs considering a new navigation pathway should first understand how that function relates to existing professional social work rather than automatically building a parallel structure.
More broadly, Decree No. 110/2024/ND-CP on Social Work establishes the regulatory framework for professional social-work practice. From 1 January 2027, people who fall within the Decree's definition of social-work practitioners must hold the required social-work practice registration certificate. Circular No. 29/2026/TT-BYT, effective from 25 August 2026, further regulates social-work practice and the updating of professional knowledge.
A cancer-survivorship navigation role can still have a distinct function. But the substance of the work matters more than the job title. Where the activities actually performed fall within regulated professional social-work practice, clinical practice or another regulated professional scope, the corresponding legal requirements, competencies and role boundaries need to be respected. Calling someone a “navigator” does not by itself change the nature of the work being performed.
Personal information should not travel farther than necessary
Cancer survivorship pathways can involve highly sensitive information about diagnosis and treatment, health status, mental health, sexuality or fertility, finances, employment and family relationships.
Viet Nam's Law No. 91/2025/QH15 on Personal Data Protection has been in force since 1 January 2026. Article 26 requires the data subject's consent in the collection and processing of personal data relating to health, except in the circumstances specified in Article 19(1). Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP, also effective from 1 January 2026, classifies health status and information relating to private life, personal secrets and family secrets as sensitive personal data. When organizations process sensitive personal data, the Decree requires access restrictions, defined processing procedures and appropriate security measures.
The enforcement environment has also strengthened. Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP, effective from 19 August 2026, establishes administrative penalties for violations in cybersecurity and personal data protection. For a social-prescribing pathway, the practical implication is straightforward: lawful information sharing, purpose limitation, data minimization, access control and appropriate safeguards are not merely desirable design features.
A community organization usually does not need a person's full oncology history simply because it receives a referral. Information sharing should therefore be limited to what is appropriate and necessary for the specific, clearly defined purpose of the pathway, with the applicable consent or other lawful basis and safeguards in place.
This matters particularly in cancer care because information about diagnosis or treatment can affect employment, family relationships and how people believe they will be perceived socially. Community connection should expand a person's life, not unnecessarily expand the number of people who know their medical history.
Family involvement can help, but the survivor remains at the center
Family members often contribute substantially to cancer care in Viet Nam, including through transport, communication, practical and financial support and participation in discussions around care. That involvement may continue to be important after treatment.
But survivorship also involves the individual's own goals and preferences. A spouse may strongly want someone to join a support group when the survivor does not. Adult children may prefer that an older parent avoid community activities because they worry about safety, even when participation matters to that person's independence. Other survivors may actively want family members involved.
A person-centered pathway therefore needs to ask whose goal is being addressed. Family involvement can strengthen navigation, but it should not quietly replace the survivor's preferences and autonomy.
A Vietnamese pilot should be clinically bounded and deliberately small
An early oncology social-prescribing pilot in Viet Nam should not attempt to cover every cancer type, every survivorship need and every community service. A more credible starting point would be one defined population and one clearly articulated implementation problem.
For example, a cancer center might test a pathway for selected adults who have completed primary colorectal cancer treatment and report difficulties with social participation, meaningful activity or access to non-clinical support. Another setting might focus on selected breast cancer survivors who are medically stable but having difficulty rebuilding everyday participation after treatment.
The pathway should be co-designed with people who have lived experience, oncology clinicians, nurses, hospital social-work professionals, rehabilitation professionals where relevant, navigators and community partners. Clinical exclusion criteria, professional boundaries and escalation routes should be agreed before referrals begin.
A reasonable process might start by understanding what matters to the survivor and what remains difficult; distinguishing clinical and professional needs from needs potentially addressable through community connection; discussing realistic options; confirming that the receiving resource is appropriate and available; sharing only the information necessary for the agreed purpose; and following up sufficiently to know whether a meaningful connection actually occurred.
That is fundamentally different from handing someone a list of activities at the end of treatment.
The referral should close the loop
A cancer-survivorship referral is not complete when information is sent. The community organization may be unable to accept the referral. The survivor may change their mind. Transport or cost may make participation impossible. The activity may prove unsuitable after the first visit, or new symptoms may emerge that require clinical reassessment.
The pathway therefore needs a proportionate way of knowing whether the intended connection happened and whether further action is required. This does not mean hospitals should monitor every aspect of people's community lives. It means avoiding a system in which a referral disappears into an information gap.
When a connection does not work, the next step may be another community option, a return to navigation, professional social work, rehabilitation, psychological support or reassessment by the clinical team. Referral should create an option, not transfer responsibility into a void.
Measure whether people regain something meaningful
Evaluation should not stop at the number of referrals made. An early oncology pilot could examine acceptability, successful connections, sustained participation and whether access differs by factors such as age, education, disability, geography or digital access. Patient-reported outcomes might include social connection, meaningful participation, well-being, quality of life or relevant unmet needs.
It may also be useful to examine whether people resume activities that matter to them, feel more confident navigating community resources or encounter fewer practical barriers to participation. Evaluation should include the community side as well: Are organizations receiving appropriate referrals? Are they reaching capacity? What additional workload does participation create? Are facilitators being asked to manage needs beyond their competence?
A small pilot may identify promising changes, but it should not claim that social prescribing caused improvements in survival, reduced recurrence or reduced healthcare utilization unless the study design can support those conclusions. The current cancer-survivorship evidence base remains limited in relation to causal effectiveness, long-term outcomes, implementation effectiveness, sustainability and cost-effectiveness.
What should we not assume?
We should not assume that everyone who completes cancer treatment needs a social prescription. We should not assume that every supportive-care need can be addressed through community connection, or that every community activity automatically becomes social prescribing.
We should not assume that an exercise group is cancer rehabilitation, that peer support is psychological treatment, or that a community navigator can assess recurrence or treatment-related complications. We should not assume that an intervention showing promise internationally will have the same accessibility, cultural fit or outcomes in Viet Nam. And we should not assume that a pathway has succeeded simply because a referral was made.
The point is not to move responsibility away from oncology. It is to make the boundary between healthcare and everyday life easier to navigate when a person's needs genuinely cross that boundary.
Survivorship is about more than surveillance, but surveillance still matters
Cancer survivorship care has to hold two realities together. People need appropriate medical follow-up, surveillance, management of late effects, rehabilitation and professional psychological or supportive care when these are indicated. At the same time, life after cancer is lived largely outside the hospital, through relationships, work, confidence, identity, physical activity, community participation and the gradual rebuilding of everyday life.
Social prescribing may be most useful in that second space, while remaining securely connected to the first.
For Viet Nam, the central question should therefore not be:
“How do we prescribe more community activities to cancer survivors?”
It should be:
“After treatment, what does this person still need in order to live well, which needs belong within professional cancer and supportive care, and where could a safe, realistic community connection genuinely help?”
If that distinction remains clear, social prescribing may become a useful complement to survivorship care in Viet Nam, not a replacement for it.
References
Jamaluddin J, Nikitara K, Atreya S, et al. Social prescribing for people recovering from treatment for cancer: a systematic scoping review. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2026;34:464. doi:10.1007/s00520-026-10561-w.
Nguyen DT, Fang SY. Unmet supportive care needs following primary treatment among colorectal cancer survivors: A cross-sectional study in Vietnam. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. 2026;84:103326. doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2026.103326.
Ike B, Cole A, Keiser B, Tu A, Holcroft M, Tong S. An adapted enhanced social prescribing intervention vs. usual care in the treatment of loneliness in cancer survivors: Study protocol for a feasibility pilot randomized controlled trial. PLOS One. 2026;21(9). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0350956.
Peterson LL, McDonough AL, Ansbaugh SM, et al. NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Survivorship, Version 3.2026. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2026;24(8). doi:10.6004/jnccn.2026.0039.
Vaz-Luis I, Masiero M, Cavaletti G, et al. ESMO Expert Consensus Statements on Cancer Survivorship: promoting high-quality survivorship care and research in Europe. Annals of Oncology. 2022;33(11):1119–1133. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2022.07.1941.
Liu J, Xiao J, Ou S, Chen J, Tang S. Facilitators and barriers associated with returning to work for cancer survivors: A systematic review. Asia-Pacific Journal of Oncology Nursing. 2025;12:100734. doi:10.1016/j.apjon.2025.100734.
Kisa A, Kisa S. Models, implementation, and reported outcomes of social prescribing interventions: a scoping review. Frontiers in Public Health. 2026;14:1871347. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1871347.
World Health Organization Regional Office for the Western Pacific. A toolkit on how to implement social prescribing. Manila: WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific; 2022.
Government of Viet Nam. Decree No. 110/2024/ND-CP on Social Work. Effective 15 October 2024.
Ministry of Health of Viet Nam. Circular No. 51/2024/TT-BYT on the implementation of social work in medical examination and treatment establishments. Effective 1 March 2025.
Ministry of Health of Viet Nam. Circular No. 29/2026/TT-BYT on social-work practice and updating social-work knowledge. Effective 25 August 2026.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law No. 91/2025/QH15 on Personal Data Protection. Effective 1 January 2026.
Government of Viet Nam. Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP detailing certain articles and measures for implementation of the Law on Personal Data Protection. Effective 1 January 2026.
Government of Viet Nam. Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP on administrative penalties in cybersecurity and personal data protection. Effective 19 August 2026.